Any Post or Non-Tribbers in Here?

[Runningman]

No, I don't believe the blue words "are a temporary escape to a different subject", but simply noting the resurrection in v.4 is of all the saved, which is contrasted with the resurrection of all the unsaved 1,000 years later.


I believe that 1 Cor 15:23 nails it down nicely.

Why would you not be convinced by that verse?


Not following your logic. We KNOW decisively that the GWT judgment will be 1,000 years after the Second Advent. And the Second Advent is when all the saved will be resurrected, which is the FIRST of TWO resurrections.

So the second resurrection by default HAS TO BE the resurrection of the unsaved for the GWT.

I don't know how else to connect the dots.

[QOUTE]Revelation 20:6 explains how this should be understood.

Revelation 20:6
6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

1. The second death does not have power over those in the first resurrection.
2. However, they still get to be priests and reign with Christ in non-resurrected form.
3. They don’t actually get to come to life (be resurrected) until after the 1,000 years are complete according to Revelation 20:5.
4. The first resurrection must be two groups one before and after the MK.

#1 is obvious and stated.
#2 is a real misread of the verse. Those in the first resurrection are the martyrs from the Trib. And they, in their glorified bodies, WILL reign with Christ in their resurrected bodies. I am perplexed at #2. The verse does support that point.

Therefore, #3 is also misguided. The text is very clear that it is the martyred saints will reign with Christ at their resurrection.

I am perplexed why you can't see the clarity in v.4 - I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

This verse very plainly says the martyrs "came to life (which is resurrection with glorified body) and reigned with Christ a thousand years". It couldn't be more plain than that.


Another problem here. Why do you think the record resurrection is BEFORE Gog and Magog??? That's not in Rev 20.

7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison
8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.
9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Follow the bolded words: when the 1,000 years are over, Satan is released and gathers from the 4 corners of earth, Gog and Magog for battle. After surrounding the camp of God's people (could be all the resurrected saints who had been reigning/serving in the kingdom) fire comes down from heaven and DEVOURS THEM.

There it is. God brings down fire and destroys ALL the unbelievers on earth. And what follows v.10? v..11-15 is the account of the GWT judgment.

So v.7-10 proves that all unbelievers will be killed before they are then resurrected for the GWT. And all the rest of unsaved mankind from Adam forward.

That connects all the dots.


The second resurrection of of all the unsaved, for the GWT. They will go to the lake of fire.


After they die, along with ALL the unsaved throughout human history, for the GWT.


Only one. The Bible says so. Acts 24:15 - and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

And John 5:28,29
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice
29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

Noted and thanks for sharing.

I think at this point we are just speaking different languages, but I am not really perplexed about it. If you'll just study different views of the resurrection, you'll see that there are at least 5 different interpretations of the resurrection. All believers seem to agree there are at least two groups in the resurrection: righteous and unrighteous. The main points of contest are normally when and how many groups.

I'll end on a compliment though. I do follow your posts when I see them and aside from what you show about the resurrections, I do find I agree with 99% of what I've seen you say, a rarity on this forum.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Noted and thanks for sharing.

You are welcome.

I think at this point we are just speaking different languages, but I am not really perplexed about it. If you'll just study different views of the resurrection, you'll see that there are at least 5 different interpretations of the resurrection. All believers seem to agree there are at least two groups in the resurrection: righteous and unrighteous. The main points of contest are normally when and how many groups.

I guess I'm perplexed on how anyone sees "groups" in either of the resurrections. 1 Cor 15:23 seems quite straightforward in that "those who belong to Him" would obviously mean EVERY believer from Adam forward. If one wants to see "groups", then I would point them to the "dead group" of believers who have physically died, and the "living group" of believers who "are alive and remain" when Jesus comes back. But my point is that ALL believers will be resurrected in the same event.

I cannot for the life of me see any "groups" in the unsaved group. It is ALL the unsaved from Adam forward. I don't know where anyone would get the idea that there will be groups of them.

I'll end on a compliment though. I do follow your posts when I see them and aside from what you show about the resurrections, I do find I agree with 99% of what I've seen you say, a rarity on this forum.

Wow. Thank you so much!

 

[Rhomphaeam]

How is Jesus allegedly going to be partaking of a 7-year supper in heaven while still seated at the right hand of the Father until his enemies are made his footstool?

Well this was your question and so as to make light of it - here is a sensible response.

These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. John 16:25-29

With such being the case, "the Lord", as in God the Father, did not "rebuke me in his person" or while manifesting to me in bodily form which is seemingly where you're headed with your question.

It occurred to me that you may explain that you were not speaking of Christ in His person - but rather the Father in His person - nevertheless I posted as I did. It is better that we enter the gate by our own hand than to be led by a whore whom we can then accuse.

Your entire rationale in predicating your manner of speech to those who hold to the pre tribulation rapture was based on a claim to a thorough rebuke by the Lord.

In any case, I've deliberately mentioned how "the Lord" or God the Father "THOROUGHLY rebuked me". In other words, this wasn't just a single isolated instance. Instead, it began one day while I was reading I Corinthians chapter 15 in the house in which I lived at that time, and it continued over the course of about 3 years. Again, as I said in my opening post here, he had me read the entire Bible from cover to cover 6 times, and that took me somewhere close to 3 years to accomplish. Over that period of time, there were many different interactions between me and God the Father.

Yet you would ask me to believe that this fellowship with the Father - based on His prophetic word - did not give you a simple meaning that Christ came to reveal the Father - not Himself - save by the Father and so He (Christ) can also be at the head of the Table in His marriage feast? And in saying that I refer to your mockery when you spoke of folding tables being brought into the Throne Room for the feast.

Did you not rejoice in your knowing the Father and from that knowing that He hears you - even when men are scattered? - (See the completion of John chapel sixteen.

I am not a pre tribulation believer - not in doctrine and not in revelation. And so I thought to ask you a question again.

What has the Father told you to expect at the end of this age in your own person? What is your portion seeing as the Father has appointed you to receive the Great tribulation as your own possession?

 

[Live4Him2]

Your entire rationale in predicating your manner of speech to those who hold to the pre tribulation rapture was based on a claim to a thorough rebuke by the Lord.

Nope.

Instead, as I've explained here more than once already, "my entire rationale", as you called it, is based upon THE SCRIPTURES.

The "thorough rebuke", as I explained in my very first post here, was in relation to me basically being a "scriptural illiterate" at that time in that I was basing my beliefs mostly upon what alleged "Christian ministers" were telling me as opposed to the word of God itself.

As I turned at the Lord's reproof and delved deeply into THE SCRIPTURES for myself, THEN I realized that the pre-tribulation rapture teaching (and many other teachings) was, in fact, a Satanically-inspired lie.

I don't see the need to explain this again.

instead, any further participation in this thread will be me posting more SCRIPTURES.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

Nope.

Instead, as I've explained here more than once already, "my entire rationale", as you called it, is based upon THE SCRIPTURES.

The "thorough rebuke", as I explained in my very first post here, was in relation to me basically being a "scriptural illiterate" at that time in that I was basing my beliefs mostly upon what alleged "Christian ministers" were telling me as opposed to the word of God itself.

As I turned at the Lord's reproof and delved deeply into THE SCRIPTURES for myself, THEN I realized that the pre-tribulation rapture teaching (and many other teachings) was, in fact, a Satanically-inspired lie.

I don't see the need to explain this again.

instead, any further participation in this thread will be me posting more SCRIPTURES.

You may be simply refusing reality.

There are very few brethren that I know who cite a revelation by the Father [His hand] through the Scriptures to explain their authority to correct others. You have done precisely that. Now you falter away to a claim to Scriptures. Where now the Father [His hand]?

 

[ewq1938]

Let's look at v.4 and 5

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

I view it almost the same but I think a : belongs.

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection:
6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

 

[Jocund]

Heirs - according to the promise. (Gal. 3: 29) So we are heirs because we receive the Holy Spirit. But `heirs of what? That is the key. We need to have specific scriptures to show what we, the Body of Christ are `heirs,` of. We cannot assume that we inherit the OT saints inheritance

The short answer is: "Yes, I agree that not everyone is given a promise that they will have a child at the age of 90" and so in that sense, yes, not everyone is a recipient of every OT promise. Some were specific promises to specific people. That said, the promises to descendants of Abraham is very specifically addressed in Galatians 3 and are Christ's (and those in Christ). There are passages that includes the promises about land which were reiterated to Jacob and those after.

One of the angles I suspected we would see was a claim that "promises" to Abraham in Gal 3:16 were a subset of the "promises" to Abraham in the OT (or something to that effect). What you've stated is close to that but different. Let's explore.

Gal 3:16 explains that the promises to Abraham are to Abraham and his seed (singular) and that seed is Christ. You have presented an interesting breakdown that Gal 3:14 would refer to one promise (of Spirit) and by extension that would make Gal 3:17 a different promise (of an everlasting covenant) within a set of promises.

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. [...] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" - Gal 3:16&29 KJV

The plural and singular can be confusing especially when trying to determine the scope of applicability. The interpretation I suggest is that the context of "the promise" at the end of Gal 3:29 to be "the promise in each case". Which would mean any time we see references to promised seed, it should be understood as "Christ and those in Christ" in each case.

You didn't provide an example of what might fall outside of the inherited promises through Christ, but for the sake of cutting to the chase of likely candidates, if we look at Ezekiel 37, we see a promise addressed to "children of Israel."

"And [children of Israel] shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore." - Ezekiel 37:25-26 KJV

The question comes back to "who counts as the children of Israel?" If we are willing to split hairs with "promises" to reference subsets of promises, it therefore follows that "children" must be allowed to reference subsets as well. In Romans 9 we see a breakdown of subsets of children (faith vs flesh).

I assume that you are not proposing that Christ would be excluded from the inheritance of any of the promises, but let me know if that is the case. If Christ inherits all of the promises, it therefore follows that those in Christ also inherit those same promises (unless you are proposing only a partial co-inheritance with Christ).

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." - Romans 9:6-8 KJV

In Romans 4 we see that the OT law does not make one an heir and rather it is by righteousness, it is by being Abraham's seed through the righteousness of faith (which those in Christ are).

"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, [...] And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." - Romans 4:13-14&21-25 KJV

In Romans 3 we see that the righteousness of God comes through Christ.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" - Romans 3:20-23 KJV

Summary:

it is the case that those in Christ are heirs to the world (cf. Rom 3, Rom 4, Gal 3), and therefore it cannot be the case that those in Christ "only receive a promise of the Holy Spirit" as you suggested.

 

[oyster67]

What is missing from this resurrection passage is ANY MENTION of Jesus taking these resurrected and glorified believers up to heaven.

That is the ONLY kind of verse that will prove your belief.

Yet, if there is one, you've only revealed that the Bible is internally CONTRADICTED.

1 Thessalonians
4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Revelation
19:1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

Something is internally contradicted, and I'm pretty sure it's not the Bible.

 

[oyster67]

This only prove my point that "the first resurrection" ushers in the Millennial Reign of Christ.

With such being the case, they're couldn't possibly have been another resurrection 7 years earlier or else this wouldn't be "the FIRST resurrection."

I agree with the first statement, but First Resurrection encompasses more than one group of people. The Rapture, for example, involves 1.) The Dead in Christ, and 2.) Those still alive in Christ. It later includes the Trib Saints as well.

First Resurrection involves saved.

Second Resurrection involves unsaved.

It's just that simple.

You can call the second resurrection the 23rd resurrection if you want to. I won't stop you.

Revelation
20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

[oyster67]

FreeGrace2 said:
each verse doesn't actually say what I believe they say.

Why the attempt to be sneaky and quote ONLY part of what I said, as if I'm admitting what I NEVER said???

Can you be a bit more honest here, and just quote ALL that I said? I am inviting anyone to challenge the verses I have used that prove there is no rapture trip to heaven and only one resurrection of the saved, which occurs at the Second Advent.

In that invitation/challenge, I said "TO SHOW that each verse doesn't actualy say what I believe they say".

To leave of "to show" and that I was inviting people to challenge my view by showing the verses don't say what I believe they say is just dishonest.

Such a tactic is exactly what the Marxist Democrats have been doing for yours. Twist what conservatives say to make it look like they have said something else.

I'm very disappointed in your post. Unlike another poster who isn't posting anymore, I held you up to more integrity than he, but now, your tactic leaves me wondering.

... I am soooooo sorry. I truly do want to be your friend and have my integrity restored.

Above, I have quoted all you said. I humbly beg that mine integrity be restored in thine eyes, my brother.

 

[TabinRivCA]

My motto re this is 'BE READY'.

 

[Nehemiah6]

As I turned at the Lord's reproof and delved deeply into THE SCRIPTURES for myself, THEN I realized that the pre-tribulation rapture teaching (and many other teachings) was, in fact, a Satanically-inspired lie.

That is a rather extreme position to take when the exact opposite is the case.

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture is a part of God's plan for the Church. Now if you disagree with a doctrine which is seen to be rooted in Scripture by probably millions of Christians, that is perfectly fine. But to make such an accusation is totally unacceptable.

Satan hates the fact that God freely saves sinners by His grace, and since the Rapture is purely by the grace of God, he hates the Blessed Hope of the church. There it is Satan who has planted anti-Pre-Tribulation Rapture ideas into the hearts and minds of those who do not fully understand the purpose of the Resurrection/Rapture.

When God saves sinful mortals by His grace, He does not stop with merely forgiving their sins and saving them from Hell (even though that in itself would be more than enough). He gives them the gift of the Holy Spirit and makes them children of God and children of Light. But the process is not complete until they are ultimately perfected in body, soul, and spirit. And that is why Christ comes for the saints at the Resurrection/Rapture. That is the culmination of salvation.

 

[ewq1938]

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture is a part of God's plan for the Church. Now if you disagree with a doctrine which is seen to be rooted in Scripture by probably millions of Christians

How can it be rooted in scripture if it doesn't even come from the bible? There is zero scriptural support for that man made doctrine.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That is a rather extreme position to take when the exact opposite is the case.

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture is a part of God's plan for the Church. Now if you disagree with a doctrine which is seen to be rooted in Scripture by probably millions of Christians, that is perfectly fine. But to make such an accusation is totally unacceptable.

Define "the CHURCH". Tell me who's a member of the Body and who's not. After the 2020 shutdown, congregations of all churches have significantly shrunken, many never returned, did you see that coming in advance? You'll never know who're the tares among the wheat - until the harvest at THE END OF THE AGE (Matt. 13:39).

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
What is missing from this resurrection passage is ANY MENTION of Jesus taking these resurrected and glorified believers up to heaven.

That is the ONLY kind of verse that will prove your belief.

Yet, if there is one, you've only revealed that the Bible is internally CONTRADICTED.

1 Thessalonians
4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

OK, so you interpret the bolded phrase as the "trip to heaven". But it doesn't say so.

in fact, the bolded words fit exactly in a post trib resurrection and glorification of all believers. So 1 Thess 4 does NOT SAY that Jesus will take glorified believers to heaven. You are just inserting your wish into the verse.

Revelation
19:1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:

Are you really not aware that by NOW, there ARE "much people in heaven"??? Every saved person from Adam on who has died is NOW in heaven. So of course there are "much people in heaven".

Again, you are only inserting your wishes into verses that DO NOT SAY what you believe.

19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

OK, let's apply the "pretribulation rapture" theory to this. According to it, the marraige and supper occurs in heaven IMMEDIATELY upon all raptured believers get to heaven.

Rev 19 is just before the Second Advent when Jesus takes all believers from heaven to earth.

Why would John describe the bride/wife as "has made herself ready" for an event that supposedly occurred already and 7 years before.

Instead, the words show what is about to occur.

Something is internally contradicted, and I'm pretty sure it's not the Bible.

Well, none of the verses you quoted say anything about a trip to heaven, so you haven't contradicted the Bible.

However, because there are NO SUCH VERSES anywhere in the Bible, we know that there will NOT be a trip to heaven after resurrection.

Because there is only one resurrection, which occurs at the Second Advent, and then all believers will reign/serve in the kingdom.

 

[FreeGrace2]

... I am soooooo sorry. I truly do want to be your friend and have my integrity restored.

Above, I have quoted all you said. I humbly beg that mine integrity be restored in thine eyes, my brother.

No problem. I just wanted to clarify what all I said so there would be no misunderstanding by other readers as well as yourself.

Again, I sincerely invite anyone who disagrees with my view to address any or all of the verses I've repeatedly shared and show me where my error is in using those verses to prove that the single resurrection of all believers is at the Second Advent.

I do not want to be wrong any more than you or anyone else does.

I believe I am right because my view is exactly what the Bible SAYS. So, if I have missed something, I would greatly appreciate being corrected. 2 Tim 3:16.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That is a rather extreme position to take when the exact opposite is the case.

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture is a part of God's plan for the Church.

Then all that is needed for support of this is a verse that shows Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven.

But NO pretribber has done that.

Now if you disagree with a doctrine which is seen to be rooted in Scripture by probably millions of Christians, that is perfectly fine. But to make such an accusation is totally unacceptable.

If this doctrine is really SEEN to be rooted in Scripture, then SHOW IT TO THE THREAD. For all to see.

 

[DavidTree]

The short answer is: "Yes, I agree that not everyone is given a promise that they will have a child at the age of 90" and so in that sense, yes, not everyone is a recipient of every OT promise. Some were specific promises to specific people. That said, the promises to descendants of Abraham is very specifically addressed in Galatians 3 and are Christ's (and those in Christ). There are passages that includes the promises about land which were reiterated to Jacob and those after.

One of the angles I suspected we would see was a claim that "promises" to Abraham in Gal 3:16 were a subset of the "promises" to Abraham in the OT (or something to that effect). What you've stated is close to that but different. Let's explore.

Gal 3:16 explains that the promises to Abraham are to Abraham and his seed (singular) and that seed is Christ. You have presented an interesting breakdown that Gal 3:14 would refer to one promise (of Spirit) and by extension that would make Gal 3:17 a different promise (of an everlasting covenant) within a set of promises.

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. [...] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" - Gal 3:16&29 KJV

The plural and singular can be confusing especially when trying to determine the scope of applicability. The interpretation I suggest is that the context of "the promise" at the end of Gal 3:29 to be "the promise in each case". Which would mean any time we see references to promised seed, it should be understood as "Christ and those in Christ" in each case.

You didn't provide an example of what might fall outside of the inherited promises through Christ, but for the sake of cutting to the chase of likely candidates, if we look at Ezekiel 37, we see a promise addressed to "children of Israel."

"And [children of Israel] shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore." - Ezekiel 37:25-26 KJV

The question comes back to "who counts as the children of Israel?" If we are willing to split hairs with "promises" to reference subsets of promises, it therefore follows that "children" must be allowed to reference subsets as well. In Romans 9 we see a breakdown of subsets of children (faith vs flesh).

I assume that you are not proposing that Christ would be excluded from the inheritance of any of the promises, but let me know if that is the case. If Christ inherits all of the promises, it therefore follows that those in Christ also inherit those same promises (unless you are proposing only a partial co-inheritance with Christ).

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." - Romans 9:6-8 KJV

In Romans 4 we see that the OT law does not make one an heir and rather it is by righteousness, it is by being Abraham's seed through the righteousness of faith (which those in Christ are).

"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, [...] And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." - Romans 4:13-14&21-25 KJV

In Romans 3 we see that the righteousness of God comes through Christ.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" - Romans 3:20-23 KJV

Summary:

it is the case that those in Christ are heirs to the world (cf. Rom 3, Rom 4, Gal 3), and therefore it cannot be the case that those in Christ "only receive a promise of the Holy Spirit" as you suggested.

"only the Holy Spirit" - wow

The Holy Spirit is the Kingdom = Matthew 25:1-13 Begins with "the Kingdom of Heaven shall be likened to

The Holy Spirit = Genesis 1:1 = And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters

The Holy Spirit = But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness

WOW - Count me in for the Promise of the Father which you heard from ME - Acts ch1-ch2

 

[DavidTree]

How can it be rooted in scripture if it doesn't even come from the bible? There is zero scriptural support for that man made doctrine.

Gut buster

 

[DavidTree]

Then all that is needed for support of this is a verse that shows Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven.

But NO pretribber has done that.


If this doctrine is really SEEN to be rooted in Scripture, then SHOW IT TO THE THREAD. For all to see.

Get in line.
I'm still waiting since August 2021